Dudzinski v Kellow and Ors

[2005] HCATrans 69

[2005] HCATrans 069

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B78 of 2003

B e t w e e n -

WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI

Applicant

and

AYNSLEY KELLOW

First Respondent

ROY RICKSON

Second Respondent

ERROL STOCK

Third Respondent

BILL HOGARTH

Fourth Respondent

CORDIA CHU

Fifth Respondent

KEES HULSMAN

Sixth Respondent

LYN HOLMAN

Seventh Respondent

COLIN McANDREW

Eighth Respondent

JOHN SCOTT

Ninth Respondent

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY

Tenth Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 3 MARCH 2005, AT 9.34 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

McHUGH J:   In this matter the applicant yesterday requested an adjournment of two months, in part on the basis that he was granted leave in August 2004 to file a supplementary application book.  He says in his application for an adjournment that he is in the process of preparation of supplemental appeal books, each 300 pages, as according to leave of Mr Wickham of 20 August 2004 under the old Rules.

On 20 August, Mr Wickham, the Deputy Registrar, sent a letter to the applicant informing him as follows:

In anticipation of your customary objection to settled indices, I hereby give you leave to prepare no more than 2 supplementary books of no more than 300 pages each, following the same format as the application book.

Please ensure that seven copies of the application book are filed, and three copies are served on each respondent, on or before 17 September 2004.  I have extended the period for the deemed abandonment of this application until that date.  If the books are not filed by then, the application will be deemed to have been abandoned.

The applicant did not file a supplementary application book.  In the circumstances, we see no reason whatever for granting him the adjournment which he seeks.  He also seeks an adjournment on the ground that Centrelink has refused to pay his wife her benefit and that he has an income of a limited sum of money.  He also refers to other problems concerning his rental lease and a requirement that he vacate the unit that he is living in at present.

However, none of these matters provide any ground for granting an adjournment in this matter, having regard to the lengthy draft notice of appeal and the applicant’s written summaries, which have already been filed.

HEYDON J:   The applicant has objected to my participation in the disposition of this application and asked that I disqualify myself.  I see no reason to adopt that course, and decline to do so.

McHUGH J:   This application seeks special leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Federal Court dismissing an appeal from a sequestration order against the applicant's estate made by Spender J.  Both the very lengthy draft notice of appeal and the applicant's written summaries of argument are confused.  They do not suggest that any appeal would have prospects of success.

The application is dismissed with costs.

Pursuant to rule 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed with costs.

AT 9.37 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED